XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 15:09:06 -0500, " R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   wrote:   
      
   >On 12/24/2014 8:58 AM, Free Lunch wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 22:54:43 -0500, " R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >> wrote:   
   ...   
   >>> This is just one example of evidence which could seen as evidence of   
   >>> common ancestry, but this fact could just as well be seen as evidence of   
   >>> deliberate intelligent design.   
   >>   
   >> Not really, but you do a good job of cherrypicking.   
   >>   
   >Can you give even _one_ reason as to why this _SHOULD_NOT_ be seen as an   
   >excellent example of a elegant, ingenuous engineering design far in   
      
   ingenuous means dishonest.   
      
   >advanced of it's need; a design which has the capacity of being able to   
   >control the development of all animal species using the exact same set   
   >of homeobox genes. And this "toolkit" being able to form the bodies and   
   >organs of all species from the earliest complex animals to currently   
   >existing species?   
      
   You are inventing a story that is unneeded. It isn't a valid argument   
   for your hypothesis because it fits evolution. If you want to argue that   
   there is a designer, you need to provide evidence for a designer, not   
   merely claim that the current evidence for evolution fits your religious   
   dogma.   
      
   >>> To make  a long story short, the mouse   
   >>> Pax 6 gene controlled the development of eyes in all animals, even the   
   >>> light sensitive spot in worms. The homeobox genes goes back 500 million   
   >>> years. This dates back into deep time early into the Cambrian, and   
   >>> certainly before the development of the evolutionary tree. It is   
   >>> incrediable that a blind, mindless, aimless process could have developed   
   >>> such a broadly based and efficient method so early in the   
   >>> history of life and with such functionality.  Yet, these hox genes are   
   >>> highly conserved, meaning they remain little changed over vast spans of   
   >>> time. This seems that there could have been objective driven planning   
   >>> and developmental design at the beginning of the variations found in the   
   >>> animal kingdom.   
   >>>   
   >>>  From an engineering prospective this is an incredible, highly   
   >>> functional, elegant design with far-reaching implications for   
   >>> biomimicy and biological inspired design.   
   >>   
   >> What about the incompetent kludges we find in life?   
   >>   
   >> Is your deity actually an engineering student who barely passed?   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   >--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)